Campaign Design: The Moon Over Wallachia

[GalacticAxekick]

After a 2 year break from DMing for my friend group, I'm preparing a campaign for my next stint as DM. I'd like to hear your opinions on the following issues:

• Should I add or remove any rules and character creation guidelines to make this setting work?
• Do the encounters I have planned sound balanced for a level 1 party?
• Do the encounters I have planned sound fun the play?
• Do the encounters I have planned make sense within the setting? In other words, does it make sense for the players to go on this quest, and does it make sense for the enemies to face off with the players (setting aside the mysterious Wildman)

Spoiler: The Premise

Show

The setting is 1450s Earth. The human race is the only race, and monsters other than beasts are shrouded in myth (if they exist at all). Magic exists, however it is not a part of everyday life. Spellcasters are seen as miracle-workers (like the stage magicians, fortune tellers and faith healers of our world).

One day, people around the world notice that the moon has become fixed in one spot in the sky. It quickly becomes clear that this terrible miracle is disrupting weather, raising tides, confusing wildlife, and only getting worse. Pessimistic and superstitious people believe this is a sign of the end times. But even the most optimistic and skeptical recognize that something must be done about it.

Using relatively simple math, people from all over the world determine that the moon is stuck above Wallachia: a small Eastern European country near the edge of the Black Sea. Governments, universities, churches and private interests from all around the world send investigators to determine why the moon has parked over Wallachia, and what should be done about it.

The four players are these investigators.

Spoiler: Session 0: Character Creation & Houserules

Show

To represent the rarity of magic, the seriousness of injuries, and the overall mundanity of life on Earth, a short rest will take 8 hours, and a long rest will take 1 week. Besides this, the players can be as extraordinary as they please. They will begin as 1st level variant humans with any class, background, and feat that they wish.

The following are some character creation notes:

• Magical classes. If a player is playing a spellcaster, they should be grounded in real-world supernatural concepts. For example, Clerics & Druids belong to faiths such as Christianity and Hinduism;; Wizards and Warlocks are occultists. This places no limits on what subclasses and spells a player can choose: it's a purely thematic guideline.
• Martial classes. If a player is playing a martial character, I am offering them my homebrew Barbarian, Fighter or Rogue classes, which I believe will give them a greater variety of options in and out of combat. A player can also use the official Barbarian, Fighter and Rogue if they prefer.
• Bonus Skills. Everyone gains a number of bonus skills from their class's skill list equal to their Intelligence modifier. Whenever a player gains an Intelligence score increase, they can gain yet another bonus skill. Bonus skills can be given up to gain expertise in other skills.
• Animal Handling. Everyone proficient in Animal Handling begins the game with either a mount or a pet from my Bestiary. Pets share your initiative and obey your orders. They can move, Dash, Disengage, Dodge and Hide for free, but you must use your action to order them to take any other action.
  
  A starting mount or pet must have no more than 2 hit dice. For example, camels, donkeys, horses, and ostritches are acceptable mounts, but bulls and elephants are not. Dogs, cats, birds, monkeys and venomous snakes are acceptable pets, but wolves and cheetahs are not.
• Medicine. Everyone proficient in Medicine gains the Healer feat.
• Leveling Up: Instead of counting experience points, the players will level up when milestones are reached.
  
  Typically, milestones are reached by the party as a whole at the end of a session (e.g. a quest is complete). Sometimes, however, a milestone is reached by a single player in the middle of a session. In this situation, the player immediately gains all the benefits of leveling up (features, spell slots, increased current and maximum hit points, etc). This allows me, as a DM, to create moments where one player shines or returns from the brink of death, as the story sees fit. All it requires is that players have a character sheet ready for their next level, even before they level up.

Spoiler: Session 1-2: The Road to Yumrukchal

Show

The players begin in Constantinople—the gate to the Black Sea. Here, they discover that its rainy streets are overrun with the poor and displaced, and that its docks are overcrowded with ferries, rafts and barges.

All the people of the Black Sea are pouring out through Constantinople, fleeing the high tides brought upon them by moon's presence. Those who cannot flee into Europe, Asia, or the Mediterranean have weighed anchor here, like drowning men clinging whatever rocks are within arm's reach.

An officer of the port—Yazar—assembles the players and explains that they are the only ones crazy enough to travel into Wallachia. Because no help can be offered to each of them, they must band together to complete their respective missions.

To begin, the party must map the ruins of Wallachia from the summit of Yumrukchal: the highest peak in the Balkan mountains that trace the border between the Ottoman Empire and Wallachia. This mission involves a week-long trek through the countryside of the Ottoman Empire and the following challenges:

• Travelling by map. The players must find their way to Yumrukchal by comparing the scenery I describe to a map that they possess and matching landmarks. This will serve as a short, simple puzzle to make travel interesting.
• Eclipses. The moon hangs directly over Wallachia, and almost directly over the Ottoman countryside that borders it. Every noon, this causes a 5 minute solar eclipse. And every midnight, this causes a 1 hour long lunar eclipse. Eclipses are not dangerous in an of themselves, but they are a recurrent element of the campaign that this mission serves to introduce.
• Bandit Battle #1. The players will encounter 4 bandits on the path to Yumrukchal, during an eclipse. Mechanically, the bandits are commoners with the Skulker feat, shortbows and scimitars. They flee if the eclipse ends or if they begin to lose the fight.
• Bandit Battle #2. The players will encounter 4 more bandits while camping, during yet another eclipse. These bandits have identical statistics, however they are not immediately aggressive. They try to rob the players in their sleep.
• Bandit Battle #3. The players will find a bandit camp near the summit of Yumrukchal, which houses 8 bandits which they may deal with as they please. Interacting with the bandits or examining their belongings reveals that they are a mix of Wallachian serfs who fled to the Ottoman countryside and Ottoman serfs displaced by fleeing Wallachians. Desperados.
• Mapping Wallachia. The players must spend at least one day and night at the snowy summit of Yumrukchal. By day, they will examine the landscape. By midnight, they will search for lights (signs of unabandoned cities). Finally, they will update their maps based on what has changed.
• The Wildman. The midnight that the players spend atop Yumrukchal, they are ambushed by a mysterious man. At first he may seem like a bandit, but he is alone, unarmed, and feral. The only sign that he isn't totally wild is that he wants to destroy the players' newly drawn map.
  
  The wildman is apparently invulnerable to harm. If the players cast light on him, it becomes clear that regenerates rapidly after he is injured, and that he is the first unambiguously supernatural force that the players have met. That said, the wildman's only offensive options are unarmed strikes, grapples and shoves. He fights like a commoner, and he is just as vulnerable to status conditions and obstacles as a commoner. The players may throw him from a cliff, restrain him with traps, knock him unconscious, or simply run away.

The wildman is the last obstacle that the players. Once he is defeated, they may safely journey home to Constantinople.

[Abuzorg]

This is going to be a Dracula campaign isn't it? I love the premise in any case.

The bandit encounters seem a little bit weak to me. Commoners aren't meant to challenge the party, even with the skulker feat. This would be especially true if some of your players would create those homebrewed beefed up martials. I would at least bump them up to the actual bandit statblock. If I were to play this against my group of players, I would bump the bandit dexterity to 14 so they would have at least +4 to hit.

[GalacticAxekick]

This is going to be a Dracula campaign isn't it? I love the premise in any case.

That's exactly what I want the players to expect! But no, it will not be a Dracula campaign.

I'm glad you like the premise!

The bandit encounters seem a little bit weak to me. Commoners aren't meant to challenge the party, even with the skulker feat. This would be especially true if some of your players would create those homebrewed beefed up martials. I would at least bump them up to the actual bandit statblock. If I were to play this against my group of players, I would bump the bandit dexterity to 14 so they would have at least +4 to hit.

Thanks for the input!

My concern is that the 4 1st level players will be fighting all three bandit encounters, plus the Wildman with no long rests inbetween (a long rest in this setting is 1 week). That's 16 commoners and an unkillable troll, essentially.

The first 8 bandits and the Wildman are all likely to get surprise rounds and advantage thanks to Skulker and stealth in the dim light of the eclipses, and the players will likely have disadvantage for the same reasons.

Wouldn't it be deadly to use the bandit stat block?

If not, I'll gladly use the bandit stats! But if so, maybe I could spice up the commoners somehow. Let me know!

[Gwin Thornspear]

Its cool to see someone setting a game in the actual world, instead of just another grim dark fantasy setting. Since its set in the 1450s you could have Vlad the Impaler show up.

[GalacticAxekick]

Its cool to see someone setting a game in the actual world, instead of just another grim dark fantasy setting.

I'm glad you think so!

Since its set in the 1450s you could have Vlad the Impaler show up.

It's set in 1450s Wallachia: the country that Vlad ruled at the time that he ruled it. Of course he shows up!

But I'm not asking for story suggestions. I'm asking for gameplay suggestions! I'm asking if the character creation rules and the challenges I have planned sound fun, balanced and appropriate for the story, and if anything can be done to improve them!

[Abuzorg]

That's exactly what I want the players to expect! But no, it will not be a Dracula campaign.

I'm glad you like the premise!

Thanks for the input!

My concern is that the 4 1st level players will be fighting all three bandit encounters, plus the Wildman with no long rests inbetween (a long rest in this setting is 1 week). That's 16 commoners and an unkillable troll, essentially.

The first 8 bandits and the Wildman are all likely to get surprise rounds and advantage thanks to Skulker and stealth in the dim light of the eclipses, and the players will likely have disadvantage for the same reasons.

Wouldn't it be deadly to use the bandit stat block?

If not, I'll gladly use the bandit stats! But if so, maybe I could spice up the commoners somehow. Let me know!

Well, they are going to get short rest in between? It would depend on the party composition. A fighter (second wind) and a warlock (rechargeable slot) would do much better than other classes as well. Be also wary of sleep spells. A single character with sleep would trivialize the first two encounters and leave the party fresh for the Wildman.

[GalacticAxekick]

Well, they are going to get short rest in between? It would depend on the party composition. A fighter (second wind) and a warlock (rechargeable slot) would do much better than other classes as well.

The PCs will certainly get short rests! And you make the excellent point that this will help Fighters and Warlocks recover between encounters.

How about I give the enemies 14 Dex (like a bandit) but leave them at 4 hit points (like a commoner)? This way, they are more likely to hit and they deal more damage, but the fights are not drawn out and deadly. Each PC can expect to get hit once per encounter for 1d6+2 (5.5) damage, for a total 22 damage, which is more than ANYONE'S maximum hit points, less than what they can heal with short rests, medicine, and possibly class features.

Be also wary of sleep spells. A single character with sleep would trivialize the first two encounters and leave the party fresh for the Wildman.

Good point! I'll be carefully to position the enemies so that they cannot ALL be put in Sleep's area without putting the players in the area as well. In other words, I'll have them spread out and/or surround the players rather than bunch together.

[Abuzorg]

Another possibility would be to keep the commoner stat block and give them bandit hit points. Or at least something more than 4.

[GalacticAxekick]

Why do you think it's important for them to have more hit points?

EDIT: For example, you're willing to trade the bonuses to attack and to damage rolls for more hit points. So it doesn't seem like you're trying to make them more dangerous by adding more hit points. Is it that you think the fights would end too quickly if they only have 4?

[Abuzorg]

I presented 3 options :

1. Use bandits instead of commoners. This is what I would go with;
2. Bump the commoner DEX from 10 to 13 for a swingier fight;
3. Bump the commoner HP from 4 to 11 for a more drawn out fight.

Given what you said about the setup of the fights, I might favor option 3 over 2 if I were you. I would probably make up my mind after I see the PCs your player built.

Very curious about how the encounter with the Wildman will go.

[GalacticAxekick]

I presented 3 options [...] Given what you said about the setup of the fights, I might favor option 3 over 2 if I were you.

I know this. I'm asking WHY. I want to understand why you favor weak enemies with higher hit points over stronger enemies with fewer hit points, and why you favor the bandit stat block most of all.

This is how the options compare in my mind, for reference:

• Option 1 is deadly, unless the party is all Fighters and Warlocks. This makes it the worst option.
• Option 2 is survivable, and makes the encounter challenging without drawing it out. This makes it the best option, since the bulk of the fight should be spent figuring out what is going on, where the ambushers are, and how to attack them without penalties.
• Option 3 is survivable, but it makes the encounter challenging BY drawing it out. This makes it an fair, but tedious. After the players have done all the interesting work of unraveling the ambush, it asks them to stand around taking the Attack action.

Very curious about how the encounter with the Wildman will go.

What I have planned basically goes like this:

Spoiler: Wildman Battle

Show

• It is midnight, and eclipse extinguishes the light of the moon. The PCs are at the summit of Yumrukchal looking at Wallachia, searching for the little firelights that illuminate the places were people are settled. They draw a new map of Wallachia based on what they see.
  
• The Wildman surprises them and makes one or two unarmed strikes against the PC holding the map. With each hit, he pushes the PC up to 10 feet away (and potentially isolates them from the group). The Wildman wants to knock this PC out and take them map from their unconscious body.
  
• Initiative is rolled. The Wildman focuses on the PC with the map. The Wildman is not limited to unarmed attacks, but also makes use of his environment (for example, lighting fires, throwing stones, and disrupting the mountain face to create rockslides or to make players slip and fall).
  
• The Wildman only turns his attention to other PCs of they get between him and the map (e.g. by grappling him, by knocking him out, or with spells)
  
• The Wildman has just 15 hit points, however they are recovered at the start of every turn. You must deal 15 or more damage in a single turn to reduce him to 0 hit points and knock him unconscious. When the Wildman begins his turn reduced to 0 hit points, he returns to full hit points and resumes pursuing the PC he last saw with the map. No amount of damage keeps him down.
  
• The only words that the Wildman speaks are "Give" "It" "To" and "Me" (if he does not have the map) and "Begone!" once he has it. He speaks no more than one word per turn. Once he has the map, he no longer pursues the players, though he will attack them if they stay at the summit of Yumrukchal.
  
• The Wildman can be defeated by sending him off a cliff face, trapping him under fallen rocks, or simply running away. He has a speed of 30 feet and will pursue the players indefinitely, so it's necessary to use stealth, spells or obstacles to outrun him.
  
• The players will have a horse and cart, however it is unfit to reach the summit of Yumrukchal, and so it awaits them further down the mountain. Reaching the horse and cart is one way to escape the Wildman once and for all.

[Amechra]

Is there any particular reason why you're planning on running this using D&D 5e? It feels like a really weird fit mechanically.

[GalacticAxekick]

My friends and I only play 5e.

We tried 4e first, but found it too low on content and too combat focused. We then tried 3.5e, but found it too mechanically complex. Finally we tried GURPS, which was again too complex. All of the above were too dependent on the grid.

5e was the last system we tried and the only one we enjoyed. I'd describe it as the most improv-friendly system we tried, thanks to it's simple rules; the seamlessness between interaction, exploration and combat; and its openness to "theater of mind" as an alternative to grids.

Out of curiosity, why do you think 5e is weird fit for this campaign?

[Amechra]

My friends and I only play 5e.

We tried 4e first, but found it too low on content and too combat focused. We then tried 3.5e, but found it too mechanically complex. Finally we tried GURPS, which was again too complex. All of the above were too dependent on the grid.

5e was the last system we tried and the only one we enjoyed. I'd describe it as a medium for improv thanks to it's simple rules, seamless transition from interaction to exploration to combat, and openness to "theater of mind" as an alternative to grids.

Out of curiosity, why do you think 5e is weird fit for this campaign?

It's shoving a round peg into a square peg. Look at how, for example, you feel the need to offer upgraded versions of three classes, or how weird a fit the spellcasting classes are in the 1450s — D&D magic is a terrible fit for real world occultism, and will very quickly push the game towards being "D&D, but 1450s themed". Heck, the Wildman fight literally involves you violating one of the core assumptions of D&D combat in the first couple of sessions, which is usually a warning sign that you're trying to make a game do stuff that it wasn't designed for.

I'd honestly suggest looking at Fate for this. You'd have to do a bit of hacking, but it's ultimately going to get in your way a lot less, and it sounds like it's a better fit with your group's playstyle.

(I find it kinda tragic that the first non-D&D game you tried was GURPs. Like, that's the game you turn to if D&D is too simple for your group.)

[GalacticAxekick]

It's shoving a round peg into a square peg. Look at how, for example, you feel the need to offer upgraded versions of three classes

Like I said in the first post, the only ways I compromised 5e for the 1450s setting are (1) by removing all non-human races and (2) by making short and long rests take longer. Every other houserule is something I would use in any 5e game. For example, the alternate martials are something I created for my friends and I to use in all of our campaigns! We've been using them for months (over a year, in the case of the alternate Fighter)!

Heck, the Wildman fight literally involves you violating one of the core assumptions of D&D combat in the first couple of sessions, which is usually a warning sign that you're trying to make a game do stuff that it wasn't designed for.

I haven't planned anything for the Wildman fight that I haven't already done in more traditional D&D settings. What assumption does it violate?

or how weird a fit the spellcasting classes are in the 1450s — D&D magic is a terrible fit for real world occultism, and will very quickly push the game towards being "D&D, but 1450s themed".

This, I agree with! If the campaign ever reaches higher levels (I'd say 9th or 11th level) the players will become much more powerful casters than the setting can handle.

I'd honestly suggest looking at Fate for this. You'd have to do a bit of hacking, but it's ultimately going to get in your way a lot less, and it sounds like it's a better fit with your group's playstyle.

I'll give it a look! Thanks!

(I find it kinda tragic that the first non-D&D game you tried was GURPs. Like, that's the game you turn to if D&D is too simple for your group.)

Lol, no kidding! That came after 4e, which WAS too simple, but we quickly found at that GURPS was a HUGE overcorrection.

Spoiler: EDIT: My thoughts on Fate, at a glance

Show

• I like that it operates on theatre of mind!
• I don't really like the fate dice system. It seems needlessly complicated relative to d20.
• I hate the fate point system. Tying interaction with the environment and access to your character's strengths to a resource is needlessly restrictive.
• I love stress! I like the idea of having parallel "physical hp" and "mental hp".
• I love consequences! I like its role as "lasting damage" relative to the "temporary damage" of stress.
• I don't like that players can declare story details outside of their backstory and their characters' decisions. As a player, I want to be exploring a setting through my character, and as a DM, I want to be creating a setting to be explored.

The only benefits to using Fate, as far as I can tell, are getting rid of the high level casters that wouldn't fit in my setting and introducing a more interesting hit point system. But I don't think either benefit is worth throwing out 5e's d20 system and introducing a stuffy resource economy, especially since those benefits can be replicated in 5e by keeping the campaign below high levels and making status conditions play a larger role in encounters.

I won't be using Fate.

[Abuzorg]

I know this. I'm asking WHY. I want to understand why you favor weak enemies with higher hit points over stronger enemies with fewer hit points, and why you favor the bandit stat block most of all.

This is how the options compare in my mind, for reference:

• Option 1 is deadly, unless the party is all Fighters and Warlocks. This makes it the worst option.
• Option 2 is survivable, and makes the encounter challenging without drawing it out. This makes it the best option, since the bulk of the fight should be spent figuring out what is going on, where the ambushers are, and how to attack them without penalties.
• Option 3 is survivable, but it makes the encounter challenging BY drawing it out. This makes it an fair, but tedious. After the players have done all the interesting work of unraveling the ambush, it asks them to stand around taking the Attack action.

#1 is certainly deadly according to encounter balance / CR rules, but experience has taught me to be wary of those as "balanced" fights are always overcome very easily. I think it always depends heavily on your players. I know I wouldn't hesitate to throw #1 at mine because we're all pretty experienced in playing DND and everyone optimizes a fair bit. Thus I think it would be more exciting.

I don't know your table and I can't envision how you plan the encounter to go exactly. But now that I have a better idea of how you envision those fights (trying to figure out where the attackers are, etc.), I do agree that #2 might be best for your purposes as a compromise between the commoner and bandit stat block.

[MrStabby]

A few random notes:

I would worry a bit about spell caster balance from a fun perspective. In D&D you can avoid enemies being in fireball formation... by knowing about spells like fireball. In 1450s this type of area of effect weapon is going to be a big surprise. Also in the seting dispell magic and counterspell are going to be rare. Spells like hold person, which tend to be a bit niche in settings with fey, elementals, fiends, giants, oozes etc. is going to be really good here. Sure, overall balance can be maintained by the longer time between rests, but you are still going to have a lot of fights where most of the the actual impact is delivered by one person and they are not a party affair.

Gritty realism is pretty good, but you will need to keep half an eye on healing. Many more opportunities to spend hit dice for recovery than there are to recover hit dice. Add in the time gap for recovering spells as well and you are looking at something that is a bit of a grind. Not a problem if you want to strongly encourage non combat solutions, but if the table likes 5e D&D this is probably not their core thought.


Honestly, I would be tempted to just ban the primary casting classes for a lower magic feel. You still have a quite a lot of options and honestly, with the restrictions you have many unatracive classes can start to look pretty good (monks and fighters with short rest resources, rangers with better ways to circumvent combat...).

Regarding higher damage/higher endurance - I would favour endurance, at least for the lower levels. One nasty crit could leave you very short on HP for an entire week with the restrictions on recovery and sitting at the back hiding won't be fun for a melee character. That damage spread over more rounds helps it be just a bit more even and makes it just a bit less likely that one player gets unlucky and that that has lasting effects.

[GalacticAxekick]

I would worry a bit about spell caster balance from a fun perspective. In D&D you can avoid enemies being in fireball formation... by knowing about spells like fireball. In 1450s this type of area of effect weapon is going to be a big surprise. Also in the seting dispell magic and counterspell are going to be rare. Spells like hold person, which tend to be a bit niche in settings with fey, elementals, fiends, giants, oozes etc. is going to be really good here. Sure, overall balance can be maintained by the longer time between rests, but you are still going to have a lot of fights where most of the the actual impact is delivered by one person and they are not a party affair.

[...]

Honestly, I would be tempted to just ban the primary casting classes for a lower magic feel. You still have a quite a lot of options and honestly, with the restrictions you have many unatracive classes can start to look pretty good (monks and fighters with short rest resources, rangers with better ways to circumvent combat...).

By the time the players are casting 3rd level spells (at 5th level, 9-ish sessions in) they will be facing primary casters such as wizards and warlocks, as well as magical creatures such as undead, fiends and constructs.

Magic exists in this world! But it's uncommon, and magical creatures are shrouded in myth. It's something few learn to practice and no one expects to face against, but something the players will face as the enter the depths of Wallachia.

Gritty realism is pretty good, but you will need to keep half an eye on healing. Many more opportunities to spend hit dice for recovery than there are to recover hit dice. Add in the time gap for recovering spells as well and you are looking at something that is a bit of a grind. Not a problem if you want to strongly encourage non combat solutions, but if the table likes 5e D&D this is probably not their core thought.

The last 5e D&D game I ran was an intrigue-focused private investigator campaign. So I know for sure that my players are open to non-combat solutions.

That said, this healing issue is why I'm offering the Healer feat to anyone with proficiency in Medicine. If at least one player is proficient in Medicine, everyone can heal once per short rest without spending hit dice (1d6 + 4 hit points, plus additional hit points equal to the player's level)

Regarding higher damage/higher endurance - I would favour endurance, at least for the lower levels. One nasty crit could leave you very short on HP for an entire week with the restrictions on recovery and sitting at the back hiding won't be fun for a melee character. That damage spread over more rounds helps it be just a bit more even and makes it just a bit less likely that one player gets unlucky and that that has lasting effects.

Noted! Does the Healer feat rule change this opinion at all?